Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
America at 250 years experienced epochal transitions from a Frontier to Agricultural to Industrial to (first-iteration) Post-Industrial society, from colonies to nation-state to world power and empire to super-power to global uber-super-power, economic crises, wars, and its terrible civil war of national definition in the War Between the States. Concurrently, each century had a paramount issue of national definition.
Mr. Obama’s comments at his Presidential Center show a lack of knowledge, or his latest attempt to split the American people. Both options are believable.
Slavery was a moral evil, but that doesn’t mean every story we’ve inherited about it is historically accurate. Most Southern households did not own slaves. A common soldier couldn’t afford one. Former slave owners were generally not compensated after emancipation. Industrialization didn’t make slavery obsolete—it often made it more profitable. The Civil War itself was far more complex than the slogans we use to describe it. History deserves better than mythology. We can condemn slavery without reservation while still insisting on facts over folklore, because understanding the past honestly is the only way to understand the present clearly.
When I first started teaching, I had an hour drive each way to work. Every single morning, Quinn and Rose were on the radio. That was MY morning routine. Coffee, highway, and Jim Quinn telling me exactly why the world was going insane… and somehow making me laugh about it at 6:30 AM.
Federalist 84 is an interesting read because it includes Hamilton defending the fact that there is no Bill of Rights in the draft constitution.
I have often heard the phrase: “Democrats hate our country.” Somehow, it always seemed a bit too imprecise and all-encompassing to condemn an entire political party for having such an unpatriotic conviction. After all, my parents and most of my family were Democrats, and I know they loved their country. I personally know other Democrats …
Hamilton continues reviewing the Judiciary and goes into greater depth on the issue of the relative jurisdictions of the Federal and State courts.
The concept of communism, on paper, presents a vision of a just and equal society where everyone’s needs are met, and resources are shared. However, history has shown us that this idealistic ideology consistently fails in practice.
Hamilton continues his discourse on the nature of the Judiciary in Federalist 81. This paper addresses the very current issue of an activist Judiciary.
These two big government muscle movements encompassing the neutering or watering down of citizen’s rights reflected in the PATRIOT Act combined with the influx of DERF–color less money—represented too much of a lessening of the best practice government oversight functions which we are still paying for today in terms of the expansive growth of government post 9-11. Which continued relatively unabated until DOGE sliced some 250K or so government positions.
Our modern beliefs suppose that the third branch of government has unlimited authority to make pronouncements. But that is not the case nor was it the intent of the Founding Fathers.
There is a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty that does not know it is dishonest. It wraps itself in the language of compassion, hides its power hunger behind slogans of liberation, and mistakes its own cultural preferences for universal moral law. American progressivism, in its current form as embodied by the Democrat Party, has become a nearly perfect specimen of this condition.
After Hamilton’s introduction to the Judiciary in Federalist 78, he digs a bit deeper into the subject here.
NSA Director GEN Keith Alexander’s philosophy increasingly based on the belief that you “can’t analyze data you do not have,” which led to a massive NSA Data Center project in Utah some 5 or so years later code named Bumblehive that enabled massive storage capability on a scale never approached before that only increased the already somewhat paranoid and conspiracy focused public to think the worst: many of whom would be proven right.
The nomination by the President, and the advice and consent role of the Senate, are designed to ensure that only the most qualified people even receive a nomination, let alone be confirmed as Justices.
‘The Big Money Show’ panelists discuss blue state policies and the wealth exodus as businesses flee Washington ahead of the ‘millionaires tax.’
This lesson is not written to tell anyone how to vote.
It is written to remind Christians that our first loyalty is not to a political party, a social movement, a news network, a favorite politician, or a cultural tribe.
Today we wrap up the process of appointments and the state of tension created by the Constitution between the Senate and the President.
A constitutional republic depends not only on honest elections, but on public confidence that elections are honest. When that trust disappears, every law, every court decision, and every elected official begins to lose legitimacy. The greatest threat to America’s future may not be violence or foreign enemies, but the slow erosion of faith in the electoral process itself. Without legal, transparent, and trustworthy elections, there can be no democracy—and no republic worth preserving.
The Framers decided the best way to choose Ambassadors, Justices and Ministers was for a single person to nominate and a larger group to approve.